I like hunting enough. I'm not really an enthusiast or one who would actively seek it out, but I used to go with my dad a lot. I too LOVE the taste of elk. It took awhile before I did though. Before I realized the food we got from it and learned respect...killing anything made me too sad. I think my early experience with a BB gun where, upon trying to shoot a bird in the tree and ACTUALLY succeeding, left a big impression on me. I proceeded to look down at it and cried a LOT for a LONG time. Needless to say...I'm kind of soft-hearted at killing things. I even proceeded to pray over animals I did hunt later on for food.

Heretical Rants wrote:

Is it just an excuse to go walking around in the woods or something? If that's the case, I'd rather just go walking around in the woods without the goal of killing anything and dragging a carcass out afterwards, thanks.

I think it's the same as why people play games. Pushing any skill is interesting. And I do agree with Istancow that you're able to avoid processed meat that way, which is more humane AND is healthier. So not only is the meat you're hunting healthier variety, technically it even has the health benefits of not being raised on chemical-laden food. (My dad is actually the manager of a feed mill that feeds cattle.)

Really, if I were to ENJOY hunting, and not just an excuse to hang with my dad that gains us awesome food, it's when we go out hunting with a bow. There's actual challenge there that's reward.

stripeypants wrote:

My comic is going to have corgi's in it. They're gonna get stuck in the snow! A very small amount of snow.

Old Welsh tradition says people believe their typical pattern comes from wearing the saddles of fairies.

I want to SEE that! I once drew my dog as a anthropomorphic entity that could shift between a corgi and a humanoid like furry. Because...our dog acts that human in her reactions. It just made sense to draw a picture of it. Thought of ways to work it into a story, but that was awhile ago.

Istancow wrote:

Adyon has represented the entirety of my perspective on this topic, so my thanks to Adyon. You are a most excellent person.

If you want welfare gone, you must first reach a point where it is not necessary for anyone.

That point has not been reached.

ya, the one cracked article says one in 5 people on welfare is on it for 7 months or less (this is from memory). also, im very injured right now, and it makes me wonder about handicapped people etcetera.

there seems to be a bit of a social darwinist vibe to the welfare abolishment platform😕. i have a feeling that a lot of poor friendless people would literally die from this policy.

my interpretation of this is that the libertarian party has more brutal official views than i thought it did.

And that's the thing that I can't get around. I think the gubment is bloated, too, and we have some serious, serious systemic issues. Acknowledging that isn't just a libertarian thing, it's pretty much an anybody-but-the-big-two thing.

And individual liberty is great, a value that's being sacrificed too much in certain very 4th-amendment-related ways specifically...

But I just cannot support a social or government system and outlook that accepts literal death as an acceptable outcome (for social failure, or not thinking way super far enough ahead enough, or having more accident than you were ready for, or being stretched beyond your resources, or not belonging to the right social group or tribe, or not being liked or taken seriously enough by that tribe, etc., etc.,) when it can be reasonably avoided.

There needs to be SOME broad-social infrastructure mindfully implemented so that one local failure does not become a catastrophic system failure in someone's life and family history.

I'm not even going to try anymore._________________The Thirties dreamed white marble and slipstream chrome, immortal crystal and burnished bronze, but the rockets on the covers of the Gernsback pulps had fallen on London in the dead of night, screaming. - William Gibson, The Gernsback Continuum

If the federal government's attempt at charity has been a dismal failure, private efforts have been much more successful. America is the most generous nation on earth. We already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. However, as we phase out inefficient government welfare, private charities must be able to step up and fill the void.

To help facilitate this transfer of responsibility from government welfare to private charity, the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar.

Its not that they want people to fend for themselves without a social safety net, just not one provided by the government. They think much of the responsibility should be transferred to charities that provide social welfare services, and encourage donations to these charities through tax credits.

I like the sound of that approach, but I think there still needs to be a temporary government safety net that helps provide education and job placement programs, since I don't think charities can do it all alone.

I'm not trying to misunderstand, and I get that you take a stance that does not directly support that.

What I'm trying to say is that there are other philosophies that seem to offer the same benefits as libertarianism that I do like, that are still better equipped to handle those kinds of social problems and offer social benefits that libertarianism does not seem equipped to address.

If you'd like to go over the nuance as you see it again, I'd be happy to listen, but I have yet to see, hear, or read anything that addresses my own particular concerns about what the philosophy is not equipped to handle, regardless of what individual proponents hold to, themselves.

The Libertarian Party approach to welfare is fucking stupid. Handing off the responsibilities of social welfare to private charities makes things more complicated and opens the door for all kinds of problems._________________The Thirties dreamed white marble and slipstream chrome, immortal crystal and burnished bronze, but the rockets on the covers of the Gernsback pulps had fallen on London in the dead of night, screaming. - William Gibson, The Gernsback Continuum

If the federal government's attempt at charity has been a dismal failure, private efforts have been much more successful. America is the most generous nation on earth. We already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. However, as we phase out inefficient government welfare, private charities must be able to step up and fill the void.

To help facilitate this transfer of responsibility from government welfare to private charity, the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar.

Its not that they want people to fend for themselves without a social safety net, just not one provided by the government. They think much of the responsibility should be transferred to charities that provide social welfare services, and encourage donations to these charities through tax credits.

I like the sound of that approach, but I think there still needs to be a temporary government safety net that helps provide education and job placement programs, since I don't think charities can do it all alone.

I don't think that private charities should be responsible for establishing the bottom on how far we let people fall when failure happens. It's a nice ideal, but it's inconsistent, people fall through the cracks, and discrimination that can then be difficult to address can creep in. A lot of charitable work, especially for religious organizations, is internal, and I know for a fact that, in practice, within my own, help comes with a lot of strings attached regarding unrelated behavior. And if you start regulating all that, you've got a centralized system anyway, just a clunky one that private organizations cannot then go above and around to fill in the gaps -they- see or want to address.

That is the crux of my disagreement on that matter. Again, simply, that there are some problems that are important to me, that libertarianism just can't address.

The Libertarian Party approach to welfare is fucking stupid. Handing off the responsibilities of social welfare to private charities makes things more complicated and opens the door for all kinds of problems.

Maybe, but more problems than a bloated government bureaucratic system? I don't think you're giving the workers of charities a fair shot with this assessment. There are many wonderful charities providing food and shelter to those in need, to expand on that system of charity, I don't believe would be as problematic as to become something "fucking stupid". But like I said, a total dependency on charity is not something I fully support.

That is the one and only requirement to completely fuck up a privatized welfare system._________________The Thirties dreamed white marble and slipstream chrome, immortal crystal and burnished bronze, but the rockets on the covers of the Gernsback pulps had fallen on London in the dead of night, screaming. - William Gibson, The Gernsback Continuum

Well I can understand your concern about religious charities, at least smaller operations. But the Salvation Army is a great, non-discriminatory charity that provides food and care for millions. Many people in the New York area receive tons of food everyday, feeding the poor, homeless and elderly. Its charities like that I see as major players in a charity based welfare system.

I'm not trying to misunderstand, and I get that you take a stance that does not directly support that.

What I'm trying to say is that there are other philosophies that seem to offer the same benefits as libertarianism that I do like, that are still better equipped to handle those kinds of social problems and offer social benefits that libertarianism does not seem equipped to address.

If you'd like to go over the nuance as you see it again, I'd be happy to listen, but I have yet to see, hear, or read anything that addresses my own particular concerns about what the philosophy is not equipped to handle, regardless of what individual proponents hold to, themselves.

There are many schools of thought in Libertarianism. While more mainstream (read: Tea Party) Libertarian groups may focus more on the free-market side of things, Left-Libertarianism and it's ilk focus more on social issues. Noam Chomsky sometimes identifies as a Social Libertarian or Left Libertarian.

Wikipedia wrote:

Left-libertarianism (or Left-wing libertarianism) names several related but distinct approaches to politics, society, culture, and political and social theory, which stress equally both individual freedom and social justice.

It is overall a very broad banner that covers a wide range of political beliefs under the central idea of individual freedoms._________________The Thirties dreamed white marble and slipstream chrome, immortal crystal and burnished bronze, but the rockets on the covers of the Gernsback pulps had fallen on London in the dead of night, screaming. - William Gibson, The Gernsback Continuum

I'm not trying to misunderstand, and I get that you take a stance that does not directly support that.

What I'm trying to say is that there are other philosophies that seem to offer the same benefits as libertarianism that I do like, that are still better equipped to handle those kinds of social problems and offer social benefits that libertarianism does not seem equipped to address.

If you'd like to go over the nuance as you see it again, I'd be happy to listen, but I have yet to see, hear, or read anything that addresses my own particular concerns about what the philosophy is not equipped to handle, regardless of what individual proponents hold to, themselves.

There are many schools of thought in Libertarianism. While more mainstream (read: Tea Party) Libertarian groups may focus more on the free-market side of things, Left-Libertarianism and it's ilk focus more on social issues. Noam Chomsky sometimes identifies as a Social Libertarian or Left Libertarian.

Wikipedia wrote:

Left-libertarianism (or Left-wing libertarianism) names several related but distinct approaches to politics, society, culture, and political and social theory, which stress equally both individual freedom and social justice.

It is overall a very broad banner that covers a wide range of political beliefs under the central idea of individual freedoms.

I think I getcha.

I still get the impression, though, that Libertarianism needs to be mixed heavilly with other schools of thought in order to actually function.

I still get the impression, though, that Libertarianism needs to be mixed heavilly with other schools of thought in order to actually function.

A relatively accurate idea, in my opinion.

Libertarianism, arguably, could be seen as a concept, rather than a working political doctrine. Other doctrines may make use of it, but Libertarianism itself, in it's purest form, could be seen as simply holding individual freedom as the penultimate "good"._________________The Thirties dreamed white marble and slipstream chrome, immortal crystal and burnished bronze, but the rockets on the covers of the Gernsback pulps had fallen on London in the dead of night, screaming. - William Gibson, The Gernsback Continuum